I thought the housing allowance for clergy who buy or rent their own housing was designed to provide parity with the churches that are able to provide parsonages. Lots of newer and smaller religious groups do not have the capacity to provide housing directly. Older and more established groups have had the time to accumulate property. What about property taxes? I assume a parsonage owned by a religious group is typically exempt from property taxes. A home owned by a minister is not exempt, right? If I'm right on those points, then the law already gives favorable treatment to groups that provide housing in kind to their religious leaders.
Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine Univ. School of Law Malibu, CA 90263 (310)506-4667 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 7:41 AM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Analogous Secular Interests As a beneficiary of that exclusion, I can confirm that the law has not changed. In our case, the house is near the center of grounds, we are required by contract to live in it, and my wife hosts some 200 events and 15,000 visitors a year. (I show up when she says it's really important.) The staff keeps records so that we could document all this if need be. Our living quarters are upstairs, over the store. Some parsonages and rectories would qualify under these rules, but many would not, and my (only partially informed) understanding is that the parsonage allowance is much more generous. It covers housing allowances that the pastor can use to buy his own house. The house need not be adjacent to the church. And I don't know how many pastors entertain at the parsonage, or counsel parishioners there, or otherwise use the house in their work for the church. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Vance R. Koven Sent: Monday, April 23, 2012 9:59 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Analogous Secular Interests I always thought the parsonage exemption was a specialized case of the employer-furnished housing exemption. Unless the rules were changed when I wasn't looking (and I haven't been looking for quite some time), the rental value of the on-or-near-campus house a university provides its president (for example) is excludable from the president's income because it serves the employer's convenience. Vance -- Vance R. Koven Boston, MA USA vrko...@world.std.com<mailto:vrko...@world.std.com> On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Douglas Laycock <dlayc...@virginia.edu<mailto:dlayc...@virginia.edu>> wrote: Bob's point 1 means the issue won't arise very often. But when a non-theist has a deeply held moral commitment that is analogous to similar religious commitments, he ought to be protected. On point 2, the lack of a sacred text is just a matter of proof, and not in itself so important. The lack of an organized body with systematic teachings is the bigger proof obstacle. But as most list members know, nontheistic objection to military service was protected as a matter of statutory interpretation in the Vietnam-era cases. I fear it would be a tougher sell to today's Court, although Justice O'Connor endorsed those cases, apparently as a matter of constitutional law, in her concurring opinion in Kiryas Joel. On point 3, the parsonage allowance is not a protection for conscience and really presents a quite different set of issues. It does not relieve a burden on the exercise of religion, and it is not part of a neutral general category; it is probably a longstanding Establishment Clause violation. But it is also likely that no one has standing to challenge it, especially after Arizona v. Winn. It is not available to all employees of the church, but only to ministers. So it should not be available to the whole staff of FFRF. But if there are employees whose job is to teach a non-theistic belief system to followers, or perhaps to proselytize the unconverted, they should be eligible for the parsonage allowance. That's how I would set up the claim if I were representing FFRF. Douglas Laycock Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law School 580 Massie Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 434-243-8546<tel:434-243-8546> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of b...@jmcenter.org<mailto:b...@jmcenter.org> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 2:15 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Analogous Secular Interests Marty, I'm very curious about your reference to "analogous secular interests" in your recent accommodation and pork post. I would appreciate some elaboration. #1 - This concept occasionally came up at the American Humanist Association during the three years that I served as staff attorney. The big impediment is that nontheists don't have "sincerely held religious beliefs", e.g., with respect to foods, clothing, birth control, death penalty. Instead, our (atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, secular humanists) notions of these items are based on personal preference, personal philosophy or (personal) reason. Altho "secular humanism" was mentioned in a footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) as being a religion, its lack of a sacred text or creed make it very difficult -- at law -- to be similarly situated. For example, Jewish men wear yarmulke, Muslim women a hijab or Sikh men a turban. But a Humanist? In one discussion I had, the question was whether a person (any person) who wanted to a baseball style cap at work where persons of religion where allowed to wear head coverings as an accommodation of religion. The Humanist hypothetically wanted to wear the cap simply because (a) he liked it or (b) he was bald -- neither a sincerely held religious belief. If a head covering is a head covering is a head covering, is not the Humanist entitled to the same civil rights as a Jew, Muslim or Sikh? #2 - Perhaps a better example would a Humanist who objected to serving in the military and killing on humanism grounds. The belief could be sincerely held -- but not universally held by Secular Humanists. And again, no sacred text to confirm. #3 - An interesting case is currently being litigated in Wisconsin by the Freedom From Religion Foundation in which it is arguing that its Atheist personnel (whom the FFRF board authorized a housing allowance) are entitled to take the Section 107 parsonage housing allowance exemption on their federal income tax returns. Bob Ritter Jefferson Madison Center for Religious Liberty A Project of the Law Office of Robert V. Ritter 6809 Kincaid Avenue Falls Church, VA 22042 703-533-0236<tel:703-533-0236> On April 12, 2012 at 7:15 PM Marty Lederman <lederman.ma...@gmail.com<mailto:lederman.ma...@gmail.com>> wrote: Just a slight emendation to Doug's post, with which I think he'll agree: Yes, virtually every Justice has concluded that religious accommodations *can be* constitutional, at least if they alleviate significant state-imposed burdens on religious exercise, as the Ohio prison accommodation would appear to do here. But that doesn't mean all such accommodations *are* constitutional. In particular, serious constitutional questions can be raised where the accommodation imposes a significant burden on third parties, and perhaps also where analogous secular interests are not treated equally (the latter concern being most acute where the accommodation creates a discrepancy in the treatment of other first amendment interests, such as speech and assembly). Neither of these concerns appears to be serious in the Ohio case. In particular, although the plaintiff alleged that the prison's removal of pork from his diet was cruel and unusual punishment, I think it safe to say most courts would agree with Judge Gwin that "pork is not one of the necessities of life." But cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EHsbIcV-6I _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
